- (1.) Heard Sri P.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel. Acounter affidavit has been filed through the Tahsildar, Chaurichaura, District Gorakhpur.
(2.) The petitioner's holding over the land in dispute has been treated to be surplus in the hands of Sardar Satyajeet Singh Majithia-respondent No. 4 from whom the petitioner's mother is stated to have obtained the property through an agreement to sale dated 25.2.1969 and subsequently through a sale-deed dated 23.2.1972. The land was included in the holding of the respondent No. 4 on the ground that as on the appointed date of the Ceiling Act i.e. 24th January, 1971, the said land stood in the name of respondent No. 4 and therefore the same forms part of his holding and has been rightly declared as surplus.
(3.) The petitioner's predecessor in interest in whose favour the sale-deed has been executed namely Smt. Betti Lal, filed objections to the effect that the land had been purchased through a valid sale-deed for which an agreement to sale had already been entered into on 25.2.1969 prior to the appointed date. It was further contended that the transaction was valid and bona fide as the consideration so paid was as per the then market value available for such land in the year 1969. The sale-deed and the agreement to sale both were placed on record. The Prescribed Authority rejected the objections. Hence, an appeal was preferred. The appeal was also dismissed against which writ petition No. 33310 of 1996 and other connected writ petitions were filed. The petitioner was one of the petitioners in the said writ petitions. The writ petition was allowed on 8th July, 1997 with the following observations: Legally the Prescribed Authority is bound to consider the evidence on record oral & documentary produced by the parties before it and to examine the same critically and thereafter to record the findings on the issue/question involved in the cases. From the orders passed by the authorities below, it is apparent that oral & documentary evidence produced by the petitioners has not been considered and has been ignored by the authorities below. Learned counsel for the petitioners invited the attention to the oral evidence, which was on the record before the Prescribed Authority as well as the appellate authority. Copies of the statement of the witnesses have been filed as Annexures to the writ petitions. In the orders passed by the authorities below the oral evidence has not at all been referred to and has not been considered. It has totally been ignored. On the other hand, reference was made to the report of Revenue Inspector as well as the statement of Lekhpal, which were not relevant for deciding the question in controversy. The appellate authority has observed that the consideration paid by the petitioners for the land was not adequate although on the ground of in adequacy of sale consideration the transaction of sale-deed can not be discarded. Thus the Prescribed Authority has recorded the findings on the question of bona fide nature of sale-deeds relied upon by the petitioners, ignoring the material evidence relied upon and filed by the petitioners. The appellate authority has also erred in law in affirming the findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority without considering the evidence on record. Thus the orders passed by the authorities below are apparently illegal.;